THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in rising to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether, in consideration of depreciated landed property in Ireland, the Government was prepared to authorize—(1) repayment of instalments of land improvement loans at a reduced rate; (2) a rebate of a proportion of the purchase money paid by purchasers of glebe and other Church estates under the provisions of the Irish Church Act, 1869, said, he was very reluctant to mention once again the grievances of Irish landlords. He considered they had not been dealt with justly, or according to the intentions of the promoters of the Irish Land Act passed a few years ago. Shortly after that Act had been passed into law it was said—he did not know whether in compliment to the Act or to its promoters—that there were three men who really understood it—Mr. Gladstone, the late Mr. Law, who was the Attorney General for Ireland at the time the measure was passed through the House of Commons, and Mr. Healy, the Member for Monaghan. The especial knowledge of the Act was supposed to be limited to those three persons. He was not altogether sure, however, that Mr. Gladstone understood it, because the right hon. Gentleman had stated that its working would have a different result from that which had really turned out to be the case. It was stated at the time of the passing of the measure that it would not affect the condition of average estates in Ireland, and that it would not reduce the value of rent. He regretted to say, however, that the expectations then expressed had not been realized. The hon. Member for Monaghan understood things in his own way, and as to the special clause that bore his name, it was to observed that landlords understood it in one sense, the tenants in another, and the Courts in a third. To speak shortly of the effect of the charges which at present fell on the proprietors affected, of whom he (the Earl of Longford) was one, they had borrowed money from the Government for land improvement under normal conditions, 83 and were required to repay it under the same conditions, although the value of the improvements did not now go to the proprietors, but to others. He knew one proprietor, to whom some indulgence had been granted, who had been suddenly called upon to pay five half-years' instalments of his drainage charge in one year, which he was unable to do. He (the Earl of Longford) wished to ask whether some arrangement could not be made by which some indulgence might be extended to that class of proprietors, so that loans might be recovered by slower degrees in more moderate instalments? The second case to which he would refer affected the class of owners who had purchased the glebe lands under the Irish Church Act. A gentleman purchased an estate valued at £220 a-year. The Church Commissioners were, after a time, merged in the Land Commission, and their staff went with them. When this estate was brought into Court by the tenants, the very same valuator who had acted on the purchase was employed, and under his recommendation the estate was revalued at only £181. The rents had been fixed for more than 50 years, and the owner had considered himself quite secure. He did not make any exaggerated claim as to the rights of property, nor did he maintain that land should in no case be interfered with; but when an artificial Act of Parliament was brought to bear upon one particular commodity, such as laud in Ireland, and when the condition in which the parties were placed by a Government guarantee was subsequently altered by another Government arrangement, he thought the persons so affected had a right to appeal to those responsible for the arrangement to consider in some way their condition, and ask whether the Treasury might not be disposed to do something in their favour. He, therefore, would like to know whether the Treasury would apply any of the balance of the Irish Church Surplus in returning some of the purchase-money of an estate which, upon a valuation of their own, appeared to have been bought at a rate very much beyond the value to which it had now been reduced?
§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, this question had already been several times before Parliament, and deputations had 84 urged the same views upon the Government. The points raised had been carefully considered by the Treasury and the Irish Government, and careful and definite answers had been given. He was unable to depart from the replies which had been so given. The Treasury had more than once pointed out that the improvement loans had actually been expended on the improvements of the lands concerned, aud that improvement was a fact which was not affected by any legislation. It might be said, with truth, that landlords who had raised money in better times were not so well able to pay the instalments in consequence of the bad times that had come since; but it was evident that the interest on these loans must be paid by somebody. Landlords in Ireland and elsewhere had found it necessary to reduce their rents irrespective of any legislation that had taken place; and the fact that they were liable for these repayments had been brought before the Land Courts, and the improvements effected had no doubt been taken into account in fixing rents. With regard to the purchasers under the Irish Church Act, he had been rather curious to learn which class of them his noble Friend represented, for both classes—namely, the purchasing occupiers and the purchasing landlords, had brought their case very fully before the Government, and especially before the Lord Lieutenant, who received a large deputation on the subject a few months ago. He did not question for a moment that some of these purchasers had had to suffer considerably, and sometimes severely. Indeed, he happened to be one of them himself. He bought a Church farm, subject to a high rent, at which the price was calculated, and he found it was impossible to obtain that rent. This was not due, however, to any action of the Land Court, but to his tenant becoming bankrupt. For his own part, he did not see how it would be possible to separate the case of these particular purchasers from that of other recent purchasers of land in Ireland.
LORD DENMANsaid, the noble Lord has not answered the last part of the Question of the noble Earl as to the payment of instalments by those who had purchased Church lands on credit. He had always thought it would be more hard to pay interest of money, leading 85 possibly to a forfeiture, than to pay rents, and a renewal of struggle for possession might be the consequence.
§ EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he must, not for the first time, protest against the noble Lord's favourite doctrine that the reduction of rent in England and in Ireland had arisen from, the same cause. In Ireland it had been caused by legislation, and in England by bad seasons. In some of the bad years in England the crops had been good in Ireland. There had been confiscation in the one case, and none in the other. There was no analogy between the two cases.